A. The prosecutor's act of putting the victim's hair up with the victim's hair by causing a sense of sexual humiliation or aversion to the public objectively and contrary to the good sexual morality sense, which infringes on the victim's sexual freedom, constitutes an "indecent act" in the crime of indecent act by compulsion, as it constitutes an act contrary to the victim's sexual moral sense.

B. The Defendant (a person who is sentenced to imprisonment with labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of indecent act by compulsion against the prosecutor’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, indecent act in the crime of indecent act by compulsion is objectively an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual moral sense, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such an act should be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim before the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, objective situation in the surrounding area, and sexual moral sense

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013). According to evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, took the victim F, who was an employee, reported television at the “E” restaurant, is recognized that the Defendant, at the same time, took the victim F, who was an employee, into two hands, would take the victim’s hair and take the victim’s hair.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, ① the Defendant’s miscellaneous part as the victim’s hair was not buckbucks or paper, but at the time, the victim was reported at the time, and the Defendant was found to have been in the part above the victim’s clothes, ② the victim was suffering from the buckbucks or paper.